About your Search

20121202
20121210
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4
to work, does it? but in the clinton era when the rates went up, the 39.6 from 35 , they paid a little bit more and, guess what, the income boomed. we had 3.8% unploimed. we balanced the budget -- we had 3.8% unemployment. we balanced the budget. they opposed the tax increases in 4-. they said a disaster would result. not a single republican voted for the increases in taxes that president clinton put forward, which ultimately led to a balanced budget and paying down debt for the first time in 50 years. not one of them because they said it would bring economic disaster and instead is brought prosperity. so they brought out that old broken record, they glued it back together. maybe they put it on the -- put it in a digital format or something. but they're playing it again. it's as valid now as it was then. so it's the same old plan, stick it to the middle class, stick it to the seniors and benefit the ultrawealthy in this country. that's not a new plan. that's the same old broken record. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, for five minutes. mr. po
president bush, president clinton, second president bush, now president obama. none of those other presidents were treated in the way this president is treated. it's something senate democrats have never done in a lame duck session, whether after a presidential or midterm election. in fact, the senate democrats allowed votes on 20 of president george w. bush's judicial nominees, including three circuit court nominees in the lame duck session after the election in 2002. i remember i was the chairman of the judiciary committee. i moved forward on those votes, including one very controversial circuit court nominee. the senate proceeded to confirm judicial nominees in lame duck sessions after the elections in 2004 and 2006. actually, in 2006, we confirmed another circuit court nominee. we proceeded to confirm 19 judicial nominees in lame duck sessions after the election of 2010, including five circuit court nominees. the reason i'm not listing confirmations for the lame duck session at the end of 2008 is because that year we proceeded to confirm the last ten judicial nominees approved
that president was in cambodia right after the election. he was in burma. secretary clinton moved widely throughout the region as does secretary panetta. and the amount of activities that i do and my forces do have been a prompt jump in what we've done in the past, and we're looking for opportunities to do more exercise. we're doing more of those things already. i think it's visible to our allies. i think it's visible to our partners. not to be invisible to the region. we also want to jump, where's the next summary our aircraft carrier, that's always the sake of. and we will, over time as you heard secretary panetta said, we will rebalance our navy towards the pacific, and i party mentioned in my opening remarks, we are rapidly moving our most capable assets in the region because of some of the ballistic missile defense will be facing of those types of things. so i think it's not about one thing. it's about a holistic approach, and what if you on the military side is only one aspect of a. it's got to be tied to what's happening in the economic side in what's happening in the diplomatic s
by president clinton in 1996, and it's a law that says the federal government, all as pecks of the federal government, including the internal revenue service will not recognize same-sex marriages even many states where same-sex marriage is legal and two appeals courts have held that that is unconstitutional, that it is unlawful discrimination. the obama administration agrees that this law is unconstitutional. it's now being defended by a lawyer hired by the house of representatives, and the case about is the defense of marriage act constitutional, that is one. there are several different cases raising that issue that the justices are probably going to decide whether to hear today. >> california's prop 8, what would that entail? >> propositional is a very different case because that's really a more fundamental case that potentially could apply in every state of the union. basically that question is does the constitution require that everyone, gay or straight, has the right to get married, and what makes the proposition 8 case potentially so earth-shaking in its politics is that it might not
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)